New Court Rulings Strengthen Rights for Remote Workers

For years, the assumption has been that remote work is something you ask for — and that your employer can say no for almost any reason. But a handful of recent court rulings suggest that assumption is wearing thin, at least in specific situations. Consider what happened in a 2025 case out of Washington, D.C.: a court clerk who had worked remotely for two years during the pandemic, with the highest performance ratings and her supervisor’s full support, was denied continued remote work as an accommodation after her breast cancer treatment. When she sued, the court refused to dismiss her claim, pointing to her two years of successful remote performance as evidence that in-person attendance might not actually be essential to her job. That kind of reasoning would have been unusual a few years ago. It signals a real shift in how courts are starting to view remote work — not as a temporary exception, but as a legitimate, potentially permanent arrangement that employers can’t dismiss without solid evidence.

Legal Developments ADA Accommodation Wage & Hour Gig Economy

Heads up — this post may include links to things I use or like, and I might earn a little something if you shop through them. Doesn’t cost you anything extra, and I only mention stuff I’d actually recommend.

When “Essential” Means “In-Person”: Remote Work as ADA Accommodation

The D.C. case I just mentioned — Employer v. Employee, decided August 2025 — is one of several that are reshaping how courts evaluate remote work as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In that case, the employee had worked fully remotely for two years during the pandemic, earning the highest performance rating for her job title. Her direct supervisor stated that her remote work “enhanced” operations. The employer argued that the court clerk role required in-person attendance because of public-facing duties and staffing shortages. But the court noted that other clerks in similar roles were already working a hybrid schedule, which weakened the employer’s claim that in-person presence was indispensable. The judge denied summary judgment, letting a jury decide whether the accommodation was reasonable.

That outcome doesn’t guarantee that every remote accommodation request will succeed. Other federal appeals courts have been more skeptical. The Fifth Circuit, in a 2026 case called Hayes v. GStek, ruled that full-time telework is “rarely a reasonable accommodation,” even after the pandemic. The employee, a system administrator with autism and anxiety, had worked remotely for a few months but was denied continued telework by the Army (the client). The Fifth Circuit held that regular in-person attendance was an essential function of the job, and the Army’s determination was controlling. Similarly, the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have emphasized that employers don’t have to eliminate or reallocate essential functions to accommodate an employee.

What’s different about the D.C. case is the weight the court gave to the employee’s actual performance history. That’s a detail worth holding onto if you’re ever in a position to request remote work as an accommodation. Courts are increasingly willing to look at what happened in practice, not just what a job description says. The National Law Review analysis of the ruling underscores that “prior successful remote work performance is particularly salient and persuasive evidence.”

If you’re considering requesting a remote accommodation, it’s worth documenting your performance while working from home — especially if you’ve been doing the job well for an extended period. That kind of record can be the difference between a case that gets dismissed and one that a jury gets to decide. For more on how to approach these conversations, the guide on telework disability accommodations walks through the interactive process.

Startup Time and the Paycheck: Remote Work Compensable Time

Another area where courts are drawing new lines involves the Fair Labor Standards Act and what counts as paid time for remote workers. A September 2025 ruling from an Ohio federal court addressed a common frustration: the unpaid minutes spent logging into a computer and opening software before you can start your actual work.

The case, Lott v. Recker Consulting, involved patient care associates working for a call center. They were non-exempt employees scheduled for 40 hours a week, and they used laptops, docking stations, and multiple software applications. The plaintiffs estimated it took 5 to 10 minutes to log in and open the necessary programs before they could “clock in” through the company’s web-based timekeeping system. At the end of the day, they clocked out and then spent another 5 to 10 minutes closing programs and shutting down. The court had to decide whether that startup and shutdown time was compensable under the FLSA.

The Tenth Circuit had previously ruled that on-site call center employees must be paid for time spent “waking up the computer, entering credentials, and opening various applications.” But the Ohio court reached a different conclusion for remote workers. The judge reasoned that after a remote employee starts their computer, what they do next isn’t automatically a “principal activity” just because the work computer is running. The court gave examples: an employee could be playing Sudoku, browsing Reddit, or reading news. Paid time, the court said, begins only when the employee starts using job-related software applications, and ends when they stop using those applications.

That distinction matters if you’re a non-exempt remote worker. It means your employer may not owe you for the time your computer is booting up or shutting down, unless you’re already performing work-related tasks during that period. The McAfee & Taft analysis of the case notes that this is a fact-specific ruling — other courts could see it differently. But it’s a reminder that the boundaries of “working time” are still being negotiated in the remote context.

For a deeper look at how wage and hour rules apply when you’re working from home, the remote work equipment reimbursement article covers related employer obligations.

Where You Live (and Work) Matters: Venue and Jurisdiction

One of the trickier aspects of remote work is figuring out which state’s laws apply — and which court can hear your case. Two recent decisions illustrate how courts are handling these questions.

In the first, Khartchenko v. The American Oncologic Hospital, a New Jersey federal court transferred an ADA lawsuit to Pennsylvania. The employee had been hired to work in Pennsylvania, had reported to supervisors there, and had her employment records kept there — even though she had worked remotely from New Jersey for years. The court said the case belonged in Pennsylvania because that’s where the employment relationship was centered. The ADA allows a claim to be brought where the discriminatory action occurred, where the employment records are kept, or where the employee would have worked absent the discrimination.

The second case, Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, went further. The employee worked remotely from California, Illinois, and Michigan for a Minnesota-based company. She sued under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, but the Eighth Circuit ruled that she didn’t qualify as an “employee” under that law because she didn’t reside or physically work in Minnesota. The court rejected the argument that virtual interactions with Minnesota supervisors and clients counted as working “in this state.” The message is clear: if you work remotely across state lines, the state where your employer is headquartered may not be able to protect you under its own anti-discrimination laws.

These rulings underscore how important your physical location is for your legal rights. If you’re a remote worker in a state with strong employment protections, you may be better off than someone working from a state with weaker laws. The Fisher Phillips analysis of the Medtronic case advises employers to create clear remote work policies and periodically ask employees to update their contact information — which also serves as a reminder that where you are matters to your legal standing.

Across the Atlantic: UK Courts Tighten Remote and Gig Worker Rights

The legal evolution isn’t limited to the U.S. In the United Kingdom, a series of legislative changes and tribunal rulings are reshaping remote work and gig economy protections.

The Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 came into force in April 2024, giving employees the right to request flexible working from day one of employment, increasing the number of requests allowed per year to two, and requiring employers to consult before rejecting a request. While it didn’t create an automatic right to work remotely, it has fundamentally strengthened employees’ ability to challenge blanket return-to-office policies. Since the reforms, employment tribunals have been increasingly examining whether employers properly considered flexible working requests and whether refusals are evidence-based and proportionate. The HRD Connect analysis notes that remote working refusals now face heightened scrutiny under the Equality Act 2010 when they intersect with disability, pregnancy, or caring responsibilities.

Separately, a major ruling in August 2026 from the Employment Appeal Tribunal affirmed that couriers for two major delivery apps are “workers” — not independent contractors — under UK law. The court found that algorithmic management, strict penalties for rejected jobs, and no genuine ability to negotiate pay rates placed the couriers within the statutory worker definition. The practical consequence is that these workers are now entitled to the National Living Wage (£12.21/hour from April 2026), paid holiday leave, rest breaks, and pension auto-enrolment.

That stat alone shows how many people are affected. The ruling also debunked the “substitution clause” myth: a theoretical right to send someone else in your place doesn’t negate worker status if it’s operationally impossible in practice. For gig workers in the UK, the immediate steps are straightforward: log your actual working hours (including waiting and travel time), request a written statement of employment particulars, check your payslips to ensure you’re being paid at least the National Living Wage for all time worked, and confirm holiday pay is calculated at 12.07% of gross pay. The remote work benefits article has more on what to look for in your compensation.

It’s worth noting that the UK still doesn’t have a formal right-to-disconnect law, but policy debate is intensifying, especially after EU developments. The Working Time Regulations 1998 remain in force, requiring employers to ensure maximum weekly hours and rest breaks are respected regardless of location. As hybrid and remote models blur boundaries, regulators are increasingly examining whether employers actively monitor working time compliance rather than relying on passive self-reporting.

What This Means for You — and What You Can Do

These rulings don’t add up to a single, unified “remote workers win” story. The outcomes are highly fact-specific, vary by jurisdiction, and sometimes contradict each other. But a few themes emerge that are worth acting on.

First, if you have a disability and need remote work as an accommodation, document your performance while working from home. A track record of success is your strongest evidence. Second, if you’re a non-exempt employee, pay attention to when your paid time actually starts and ends — and keep a log if you suspect you’re losing minutes each day. Third, be aware that your physical location determines which state laws protect you. If you work across state lines, you may fall into a gap where your employer’s home state doesn’t cover you and your home state may not either.

For gig workers in the UK, the recent EAT ruling is a concrete step toward better protections. If you think you’ve been misclassified, the steps in the previous section are a good starting point. And regardless of where you are, the professional liability insurance article is worth a read if you’re working remotely and wondering about coverage gaps.

The legal landscape is still in motion. What’s clear is that courts are no longer treating remote work as a temporary exception that employers can revoke without thinking. The burden of proof is shifting — employers are increasingly expected to show why in-person attendance is truly necessary, not just assert that it is.